Secretary of State Jim Condos holds up a pamphlet during a meeting of the Vermont Press Association on Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 in Montpelier, Vt. / TOBY TALBOT, Associated Press

The most troubling phrase emerging from South Burlington's latest financial controversy is "executive session." These words are heard way too often in governance in Vermont, and often follow with a sting.

South Burlington has felt the sting. The city is involved in a conflict over a pension that was supposedly promised but is without documentation of an agreement.

Former City Manger Chuck Hafter, who retired after 21 years on the job, said he received authorization for enrolling in a second pension and obtaining a long-term care insurance for himself and his wife at taxpayer expense. A search was made of the supporting documentation. The attorney for the city was unable to find any record of action by the City Council approving the benefits.

Secretary of State Jim Condos, who ran on a platform of open government in the 2010 election, was president of the City Council in 2003 when the questionable agreement was said to be made. He offered the strongest testimony to city action to award Hafter with a second pension and the long-term care insurance, though only through memory.

For the city pension, "We put him in," Condos told the Free Press. "I assume we came out of executive session and voted on it."

As for the insurance policy, Condos said, "I think we came out executive session and voted on it."

Other city councilors at the time remember the subject being mentioned, yet no one other than Condos has offered definitive recollection of a formal motion approving either the double pension or the insurance.

We know what happens when anyone assumes, and here lies the crux of the issue.

Too much of the public's business in Vermont is decided behind closed doors as if elected officials are members of a private country club.

The common practice with executive sessions is to keep no records, including minutes, of meetings. Operate on the fly, and pray everyone has the same memory when conflict arises. Then take a vote and be incapable of remembering who voted and how. Please tell us this is not the way you operate a city as large as South Burlington, but apparently it is.

Now South Burlington residents must sort through the contradictions of past officials about what might have been discussed behind closed doors. This happens in large part because state laws on governance, including executive sessions, are exercised in a loosey-goosey manner.

State government has created this untenable situation with laws that do not specify clear standards of accountability. As a result, a former city employee and the city are at odds over a serious issue concerning retirement pay. Neither they nor the public deserve to be in this position.

The situation erodes credibility of government. No governing body can be believed if it cannot be held accountable for its actions.

State government is in a reform mode with transparency.

The Legislature needs to create guidelines that are more rigorous. The Legislature needs to impose ramifications for the failure of elected officials to be responsible for protecting the public welfare. The Legislature needs to reduce the reasons for any public body going into executive session. The Legislature must insist that executive sessions include only the topics covered under law and that diversions into any other topic are a clear violation.

The public deserves fuller participation in understanding the decisions that are made based on a hard record -- not a soft memory.